I am aware of no benchmark that shows the binary driver to be faster then
thrift. Yes. Theoretically a driver that with multiplex *should be* faster
in *some* cases. However I have never seen any evidence to back up this
theory anecdotal or otherwise.
In fact....
https://github.com/pchalamet/cassandra-sharp/pull/24
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Derek Williams wrote:
> The binary protocol is able to multiplex multiple requests using a single
> connection, which can lead to much better performance (similar to HTTP vs
> SPDY). This is without comparing the performance of thrift vs binary
> protocol, which I assume the binary protocol would be faster since it is
> specialized for cassandra requests.
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo <
> renatoj.marroquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Shamim,
>>
>> Why do you say that Java-Driver has better performance over Hector or
>> Astyanax? Is there any reasons for this?
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Renato M.
>>
>> 2013/5/5 Shamim :
>> > Hi,
>> > Astyanax is just a refactoring of Hector and implements a few common
>> cassandra use cases. Very easy to use api. In Astyanax you will found all
>> the functions from hector. For better performance you can also check
>> datastax java driver https://github.com/datastax/java-driver.
>> >
>> > There are another lightweight client from twitter
>> https://github.com/twitter/cassie
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards
>> > Shamim A.
>> >
>> > 05.05.2013, 05:30, "李 晗" :
>> >> hello，
>> >> i want to know which cassandra client is better？
>> >> and what are their advantages and disadvantages？
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Derek Williams
>